Being done for 'failing to furnish' - help!
Discussion
Need a good solicitor in Nottingham...
Just had a letter from the pencil-necked idiots at Nottinghamshire Police saying they're going to prosecute me for 'failing to furnish' on my NIP, despite the ongoing correspondence asking for more information so I can clarify who was driving the car at the time the speeding offence took place (41 in a 30 zone).
Basically they sent me a picture of the back of the car with a letter to the effect that they didn't have a clue who was driving either, but it was my responsibility to be psychic, or guess or something.
I used to have a lot of respect for the police, but this kind of bureaucratic stupidity has put a serious dent in that. Are the police being reduced to mindless paper shufflers now? They've refused to cooperate in any way and ignored the questions asked in my letters. How is justice served by doing this? Well, it ain't - it just shows what this is all about: they're not interested in anything except your money, and anything that means they have to work for that money means they'll ignore it.
[/rant]
Anyway - I'm not just going to bend over for them. I need a solicitor in Nottingham who's good at these kind of cases. Anyone got any recommendations?
Just had a letter from the pencil-necked idiots at Nottinghamshire Police saying they're going to prosecute me for 'failing to furnish' on my NIP, despite the ongoing correspondence asking for more information so I can clarify who was driving the car at the time the speeding offence took place (41 in a 30 zone).
Basically they sent me a picture of the back of the car with a letter to the effect that they didn't have a clue who was driving either, but it was my responsibility to be psychic, or guess or something.
I used to have a lot of respect for the police, but this kind of bureaucratic stupidity has put a serious dent in that. Are the police being reduced to mindless paper shufflers now? They've refused to cooperate in any way and ignored the questions asked in my letters. How is justice served by doing this? Well, it ain't - it just shows what this is all about: they're not interested in anything except your money, and anything that means they have to work for that money means they'll ignore it.
[/rant]
Anyway - I'm not just going to bend over for them. I need a solicitor in Nottingham who's good at these kind of cases. Anyone got any recommendations?
I can't tell them who was driving 'cos I don't know! Both me and the missus drove on the road in question that morning, and the information and picture they supplied is so vague as to be useless (the road is over a mile long and the picture is a close-up of the back of the car so you can't tell where it is). This was all explained in the letters I sent and basically I thought they'd just tell me where the camera was and in what direction it was pointing. That way I could work out who was at the wheel. This obviously constituted work for them so they ignored it, rather that getting off their fat arses to look it up and enable me to do my bit without having to go to court. It's farcical, it really is...
Edited to add: the only reason it's come to this is because I've gone over the 28 days to respond limit. This has only happened because it takes so damn long for them to reply to my letters. Took them 12 days to respond to my last letter, then they sent the reply second class.
>> Edited by judas on Saturday 19th April 10:52
Edited to add: the only reason it's come to this is because I've gone over the 28 days to respond limit. This has only happened because it takes so damn long for them to reply to my letters. Took them 12 days to respond to my last letter, then they sent the reply second class.
>> Edited by judas on Saturday 19th April 10:52
Obviously can't both drive at the same time - though it would be entertaining to try 
In brief: Wife drives car to her work down road in question, gets out, I take over driving and go back along said road. All this happens some time between 8.15 and 8.45 am. Camera took pic at 8.37 am. See the problem?
In brief: Wife drives car to her work down road in question, gets out, I take over driving and go back along said road. All this happens some time between 8.15 and 8.45 am. Camera took pic at 8.37 am. See the problem?
Alan420 said: One trick I've heard that works is you both plead guilty. They can't convict two people of the same speeding offence so they have to provce which of you did it.
That's the theory at least.
Hmmm, don't see how that could work. To both plead guilty you'd both have to be charged, which ain't gonna happen.
judas said:
Alan420 said: One trick I've heard that works is you both plead guilty. They can't convict two people of the same speeding offence so they have to provce which of you did it.
That's the theory at least.
Hmmm, don't see how that could work. To both plead guilty you'd both have to be charged, which ain't gonna happen.
it works though
Got off using this method
judas said: How??? Please elaborate!
But it's a bit late for that approach for me now, as I'm being done for 'failing to furnish', not speeding, though it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if I get done for that too
When the nip came through filled it in stated the driver was drivers a and b
As there was no evidence to prove who commited the crime it had to be dropped
>> Edited by pies on Saturday 19th April 11:43
judas.......the good news is....you do have a valid defence.
The bad news is.....you must convince the magistrates that (a) you are telling the truth and (b) you have done everything you can to identify the driver, but you have been unable to do so.
The government wrote this defence into the Road Traffic Act 1988, specifically to safeguard people who are genuinely unable to identify the driver.
It's in Section 172, reproduced below. The relevant bit is in paragraph 3.
Some of the "safety camera partnership" websites make reference to section 172 as a threat, but never disclose the existence of para 3. Bloody disgrace!
So.......it's all down to the magistrates.....can you convince them?
Good luck.
The bad news is.....you must convince the magistrates that (a) you are telling the truth and (b) you have done everything you can to identify the driver, but you have been unable to do so.
The government wrote this defence into the Road Traffic Act 1988, specifically to safeguard people who are genuinely unable to identify the driver.
It's in Section 172, reproduced below. The relevant bit is in paragraph 3.
172.—(1) This section applies—
(a) to any offence under the preceding provisions of this Act except—
(i) an offence under Part V, or
(ii) an offence under section 13, 16, 51(2), 61(4), 67(9), 68(4), 96 or 117,
and to an offence under section 178 of this Act,
(b) to any offence under sections 25, 26, 27 and 45 of the [1988 c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, and
(c) to any offence against any other enactment relating to the use of vehicles on roads.
(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.
In this subsection references to the driver of a vehicle include references to the person riding a cycle.
(3) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(a) above is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle or, as the case may be, the rider of the cycle was.
(4) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(b) above is guilty of an offence.
Some of the "safety camera partnership" websites make reference to section 172 as a threat, but never disclose the existence of para 3. Bloody disgrace!
So.......it's all down to the magistrates.....can you convince them?
Good luck.
Further to my last message, Hampshire(?) police recently failed to identify the driver of a gatso'd police car, so pleaded guilty to the charge of failing to disclose.
They spent a massive amount of police time and money investigating the matter and narrowed it down to a few suspects, all of whom denied driving.
They 'diligently' tried to find the driver, but failed.
Hence, they could have used the S172 para 3 defence, but chose not to, presumably to be seen as doing the 'right thing'.
However, the fine imposed on the police had to be paid from Council Tax funds, and Idris Francis took objection to this and actively pursued the police for perverting the course of justice!
I think he's still hammering away at it.
They spent a massive amount of police time and money investigating the matter and narrowed it down to a few suspects, all of whom denied driving.
They 'diligently' tried to find the driver, but failed.
Hence, they could have used the S172 para 3 defence, but chose not to, presumably to be seen as doing the 'right thing'.
However, the fine imposed on the police had to be paid from Council Tax funds, and Idris Francis took objection to this and actively pursued the police for perverting the course of justice!
I think he's still hammering away at it.
Already found out about the paragraph 3 defence - they do seem reluctant to inform people of this don't they. Wonder why...? But many thanks all the same
Now I need to find a good solicitor who's well versed in defending these kind of cases as I'm not bending over on this one. I really don't care about the money. I could have saved myself a lot of hassle and just pleaded guilty and took the £60 fine/3 points. But as I cannot possibly know from their 'evidence' who was driving, I'm not going to incriminate myself just for their convenience. I've had a clean licence for 19 years, and not just through pure luck. This is a matter of principle and I'd rather spend £600 on legal fees than pay a £60 fine for something I may not have done and for which the Police can provide no conclusive evidence.
Just hope I get a non-numpty magistrate
with some common sense who chucks the case out and bo11ocks the police for wasting his time 
Chances of this are slim at best though 
What it all boils down to is that unless I can PROVE I did not commit Crime A, finger someone else for it, or prove I don't know who did it, I will automatically be found guilty of Crime B. How does that in any way resemble justice? Burden of proof of innocence should never lie with the accused. There is something very, very wrong when the law parts company with justice.
>> Edited by judas on Saturday 19th April 16:20
>> Edited by judas on Saturday 19th April 16:25
Now I need to find a good solicitor who's well versed in defending these kind of cases as I'm not bending over on this one. I really don't care about the money. I could have saved myself a lot of hassle and just pleaded guilty and took the £60 fine/3 points. But as I cannot possibly know from their 'evidence' who was driving, I'm not going to incriminate myself just for their convenience. I've had a clean licence for 19 years, and not just through pure luck. This is a matter of principle and I'd rather spend £600 on legal fees than pay a £60 fine for something I may not have done and for which the Police can provide no conclusive evidence.
Just hope I get a non-numpty magistrate
with some common sense who chucks the case out and bo11ocks the police for wasting his time Chances of this are slim at best though What it all boils down to is that unless I can PROVE I did not commit Crime A, finger someone else for it, or prove I don't know who did it, I will automatically be found guilty of Crime B. How does that in any way resemble justice? Burden of proof of innocence should never lie with the accused. There is something very, very wrong when the law parts company with justice.
>> Edited by judas on Saturday 19th April 16:20
>> Edited by judas on Saturday 19th April 16:25
mybrainhurts said:Hampshire(?) police recently failed to identify the driver of a gatso'd police car, so pleaded guilty to the charge of failing to disclose.
They spent a massive amount of police time and money investigating the matter and narrowed it down to a few suspects, all of whom denied driving.
They 'diligently' tried to find the driver, but failed.
i was told that every police vehicle has a log that the officer must sign to state that the vehicle was in roadworthy condition.i had a speeding charge thrown out because the sussex police car(chichester) had a defective headlamp bulb(well,he tried to get me for a broken headlamp so i returned the favour!) and the log had not been signed.
as the log wasnt signed and the car was defective they had to forget the producer AND the speeding offence.
we did have the cops in a flutter when they said the reason their o/s headlamp didnt work was because it was a 'parking light' and my mate alan pointed out the peugeot they were driving had no parking light curcuit and he should know as he worked for perry's peugeot in havant as an mot examiner and also dealt with some of the pdi's!
A friend of mine successfully discharged a speeding fine in a similar manner. His claim was that he and two friends were in the car and were sharing the driving, and were not sure who was driving exactly at the time of the offence. None of them would be able to say honestly who was driving. Case was thrown out. That after shitloads of correspondence and ignorant replies from the Police.
Good luck mate.
Good luck mate.
Yes it did, albeit for a very short time
Basically the guys in the Police corner were unable to understand any of his letters (or so it seemed) and just kept writing to him requesting information, and that he would be taken to court if he failed to do so. He wrote back to them several times, enclosing a copy of every previous letter (the last two merely said "I refer you to my previous letters of xx/xx/xx, xx/xx/xx....". Went to court, Magistrate heard his side of the story, together with letters from the friends confirming they were driving that night, but not sure at exact times. It was dropped, end of. He did his best to identify who was driving. Companies might be different as they might require (for diligence part you understand) employees and users to sign in/out. I try to run such a system, but even that isn't infallible.
From what you say, you have 2 people who you have identified as possible candidates, but are unsure exactly who did it. Just have to see if the magistrate thinks you were diligent enough I guess. If you act sincere, and tell them the Police did not supply you with necessary details (camera location?) then it would seem that at least you tried.
Good luck, he got off, your situation doesn't sound a million miles off his.
Basically the guys in the Police corner were unable to understand any of his letters (or so it seemed) and just kept writing to him requesting information, and that he would be taken to court if he failed to do so. He wrote back to them several times, enclosing a copy of every previous letter (the last two merely said "I refer you to my previous letters of xx/xx/xx, xx/xx/xx....". Went to court, Magistrate heard his side of the story, together with letters from the friends confirming they were driving that night, but not sure at exact times. It was dropped, end of. He did his best to identify who was driving. Companies might be different as they might require (for diligence part you understand) employees and users to sign in/out. I try to run such a system, but even that isn't infallible.
From what you say, you have 2 people who you have identified as possible candidates, but are unsure exactly who did it. Just have to see if the magistrate thinks you were diligent enough I guess. If you act sincere, and tell them the Police did not supply you with necessary details (camera location?) then it would seem that at least you tried.
Good luck, he got off, your situation doesn't sound a million miles off his.
judas said Burden of proof of innocence should never lie with the accused. There is something very, very wrong when the law parts company with justice.
Justice? What justice? Goes out of the window when tax collecting's involved.
I believe this is the only area in law where you don't have the right to remain silent.
Idris Francis is still chasing that one, too.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff